Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 887 posts

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#611

Post by jmwilson »

novok wrote: post #467
deminature wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The mo…

So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?

There's the $800 California LLC annual fee, which is the highest in the country, and applies before you make a dollar in revenue.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#612

Post by asdff »

core-questions wrote: post #571
smsm42 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the part of the city is unsafe (as some parts of some major cities are frequently nowdays) to the point the driver risks being assaulted by a mob, dragged out and beaten or shot, and their vehicle destroyed - I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to refuse such ride. No ride worth your life, and unless you're paying 1000x the Uber rates, no ride is worth your car ruined.

Amazing that you're downvoted. Are HN posters really so sheltered that they don't know that this is a reality in many major American cities? I'm sure it's in areas they never visit, for totally unspecified reasons, but it's real. There are areas (e.g. in Camden NJ) where the police will tell you to not stop your car for any reason, just get through and get out. Pretending this isn't a reality or that it doesn't have…

In what American city will you get dragged out of your car and beaten? Somewhere cartel controlled in south America, maybe, but that would be a pricey uber coming all the way from the U.S.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#613

Post by tfehring »

deminature wrote: post #423
Will_Do wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. I guess AB5 is much more strict.

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The mo…

Whether Uber's business is providing taxi service or just providing a platform for independent drivers to connect with clients, intuitively it seems like the work drivers do is clearly within the usual course of Uber's business. What would Uber's counterargument look like here? Am I just reading it too literally?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#614

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

sneak wrote: post #522
adrianN wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Germany proper Taxis have to pick you up (as far as I know, I almost never need one). That's apparently the main reason they offer why they should be protected against services like Uber.

That’s the law in most places in the US, too. Uber was founded because it wasn’t really true in practice. You couldn't order a taxi in most places without giving your destination, and frequently they just wouldn't show. Uber was, and remains, a huge improvement over the pre-Uber status quo.

For drivers or riders?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#615

Post by black_puppydog »

slipheen wrote: post #494

Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.

Yeah that seems like a decent outcome. And for those shouting now "oh we're going back to the taxi monopolies, it's horrible" I say: Yes. It's horrible. Obviously so.

But at least now there's some actual room for improvement without the air already being sucked out of the market by one big player. Forcing market players to actually abide by the laws means someone (and this might well be Uber, but it's fine if it's someone else) can now come up with a solution that is both usable and follows local legislation, without being killed right out of the gates by an overfunded competitor that draws much of its market power from disregarding said legislation.

Uber was a local optimum. They have a choice to keep searching, but it seems they were too comfortable with things as they were.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#616

Post by asdff »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #576
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "black" taxi drivers not pick up "black" passengers? What is your obsession with color coding people? It's unhealthy and racist.

We've finally come full circle to the point where calling out racism is now racist. Pack it up folks, it's time to go home.

What has happened to this forum lately? Election year, I guess.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#617

Post by arez »

beaunative wrote: post #599

Uber's model would work fine in a country where the government provides medical insurance, disability insurance and the protective net you need. In the US, unfortunately, those protective nets are liabilities of the companies to their staff, not a service provided by the government. One could argue a third solution where the driver would unionize and the protective net should be offered by the union.

we have all that in germany but we also have minimum wage, which uber can't pay, that's why they're basically a "normal" taxi company here.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#618

Post by gamblor956 »

novok wrote: post #467
deminature wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The mo…

So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?

No, because Adorama is a company, and companies can't be employees...

Nothing prevents drivers from registering LLCs to drive for uber, and that is in fact what the CA DOL website says is a bare minimum for satisfying another part of AB5.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#619

Post by speby »

chucknthem wrote: post #264
mtnGoat wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i was unaware of these changes, its interesting to see the changes that were made. it will be interesting to see how they effect riders/drivers over time. thank you for the post.

Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a…

I would agree and what's especially bad about it is that these changes complicate what was what made Uber so special. You could quite literally press a button to summon a ride and it would show up, you'd get in, and they'd take you to exactly where you inputted, and then you'd get out, no other fussiness to deal with like tipping or unpredictable pricing, etc.

These changes make Uber become more like the traditional taxi world, which is quite honestly what people hated about taxis but had to live with anyways because it was such a regulated environment and filled with cronies in many cities.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#620

Post by qeternity »

nrmitchi wrote: post #540
qeternity wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Uber driver’s are too dumb to realize they’re being paid unfair wages? Why would anyone work for such a company if they have better alternatives?

I am not going to state that "drivers are too dumb", but as far as I know it is definitely not clear that it is clear to a (potential) driver what they are actually being paid after all expenses. It is not unreasonable that any given person will not immediately understand the full cost of being a driver, including insurance (like ensuring that their existing auto insurance is even valid if you're ever driving for a c…

> It's not unreasonable...

You mean unlikely. It is absolutely unreasonable. But these arguments just don’t stand up. In the early days, perhaps this is true. But everyone is massively aware of these arguments now and what you’re still arguing is that people need to be protected from themselves.

Think about what you’re saying: your back-of-the-envelope conjecture without any empirical evidence should be taken over the millions of people who work in these industries, not just for a month before realizing they’ve been hosed, but for years and years.

How about this: let’s presume all of what you say is true. What if after all those costs are accounted for, it’s still profitable for many people to drive for Uber.

Post reply on HN